What I'm listening to

Flickr photos

September 24, 2007

British Library in the Observer

The threat to the British Library of budget cuts after the spending review is mentioned both in a news article and a comment piece by the BL's Chief Executive, Lynne Brindley. The effect is spoiled a little by a typo in the headline of the latter piece, 'we cannot allow the British Library's peerless collection to be put at risk by potential funding [sic —I think they missed out a word–TR]'), and also by Brindley's appeal to 'UKplc' and 'competitive advantage'. I recognise that one may have sometimes, when stating a case, to use the enemy's language; but to invoke the outdated Thatcher- Blair concept that capitalist companies like Northern Rock are models of efficiency we all should follow seems to me to be sabotaging ones argument before one has even started.

Brindley also says that she would 'wager that everyone with an interest, however esoteric, would find something in our collections that would bowl them over'. That's very true, but the BL is negotiating arrangements under which national collections which should be available to all will be restricted to certain classes of reader. Through the Newspapers Digitisation Project: they are digitising over two million pages from British nineteenth century national,
regional and local newspapers, but, though a resource of tremendous value to local and family historians, the digitised pages will only be available to users in higher and further education. Someone
will probably argue that, because the project has been funded by JISC, it is
not unreasonable for them to restrict access to their users. But JISC, like the
BL, is playing with taxpayers' money. If, as I have heard it suggested, they
were to allow ordinary researchers access to the full-text for a fee, it will
create two tiers of British Library reader, not a principle Panizzi would have
endorsed.

Comments

British Library in the Observer

The threat to the British Library of budget cuts after the spending review is mentioned both in a news article and a comment piece by the BL's Chief Executive, Lynne Brindley. The effect is spoiled a little by a typo in the headline of the latter piece, 'we cannot allow the British Library's peerless collection to be put at risk by potential funding [sic —I think they missed out a word–TR]'), and also by Brindley's appeal to 'UKplc' and 'competitive advantage'. I recognise that one may have sometimes, when stating a case, to use the enemy's language; but to invoke the outdated Thatcher- Blair concept that capitalist companies like Northern Rock are models of efficiency we all should follow seems to me to be sabotaging ones argument before one has even started.

Brindley also says that she would 'wager that everyone with an interest, however esoteric, would find something in our collections that would bowl them over'. That's very true, but the BL is negotiating arrangements under which national collections which should be available to all will be restricted to certain classes of reader. Through the Newspapers Digitisation Project: they are digitising over two million pages from British nineteenth century national,
regional and local newspapers, but, though a resource of tremendous value to local and family historians, the digitised pages will only be available to users in higher and further education. Someone
will probably argue that, because the project has been funded by JISC, it is
not unreasonable for them to restrict access to their users. But JISC, like the
BL, is playing with taxpayers' money. If, as I have heard it suggested, they
were to allow ordinary researchers access to the full-text for a fee, it will
create two tiers of British Library reader, not a principle Panizzi would have
endorsed.